“…can not easily be put back. “
These are the closing words of this reasonably well-considered article about the escalating crisis in Gaza, written by Peter Beaumont at The Guardian. Despite it’s rather unfortunate (and clearly editorial) headline, the article is as “well-considered” as seems possible in the mainstream media these days and makes a number of pertinent observations, and not just about Israel’s “logic of escalation”.
Among the more useful points, Beaumont opens with: “Military operations have their own logic. A point is reached where circumstances, political and military, drive the dynamic and can overwhelm the original intention of the combatants.”
True enough. Fairly, this logic is applied to most of the parties, great and small, who are directly or indirectly involved in the conflict. And, though Beaumont doesn’t belabor Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “prickly relations” with US President Obama, we might do well to wonder just what his (Obama’s) intentions are too.
The article takes pains, after all, to ponder the apparently confused messages that have been conveyed by Netanyahu’s inner circle. I might, then, be inclined to ponder whether or not this apparent “confusion” is, more-or-less, a direct result of having a particularly unreliable ally in Washington.
Is it, I might add, yet another example of what it looks like when people under fire are asking for help while this administration considers whether or not they can s/pin it on another YouTube video? Confused? I’ll bet Ambassador Stevens was just a bit confused too.
As I’ve been prone to observe, Israel doesn’t really have much choice. Rhetoric accomplishes very little in an actual war, especially when you’ve been so effectively isolated from vital support. Whether intentional or not, that can’t help but embolden Israel’s enemies.
But, as President Obama has himself reminded us, “elections have consequences”. Uhuh. Sometimes they open a box.